To all of the Bose-bashers [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : To all of the Bose-bashers



Audie Oghaisle
04-12-2004, 08:39 AM
I recently came across a recent episode of the never-ending to and fro re: the 901s...let me say to all and sundry, and I'll use a line I've read countless times in other forums @this site, "You don't know how to listen!"

Most members ot the "boom and tizz" brigade (long-time readers of the late, lamented "AUDIO" mag will recognize that phrase) are so use to hearing "in-your-face" hi freqs, they believe it to be a hallmark of accurate sound...and the low freq humps designed into most loudspeakers to disguise their rapidly-falling off, below mid-bass reponses...well, let's not go there!

I have owned 901 Series lls since 1974. I auditioned Allisons, Advents, Dahlquists(pre-mirror imaging mods) etc., etc. and chose Bose.

Why? To me, all the reasons pertaining to their design and execution made perfect sense. Multiple small drivers producing the output of a single 12" woofer with less mass, no hangover, none of the drawbacks of the larger cone. They theoretically can and, in practice do, provide crisp and accurate transients and do extend well into the nether areas...talk about basso profundo!

On a wide range of low freq-rich program material, whether it be the tympani in Copland's "Fanfare For The Common Man" , E. Power Biggs pedal work on Bach's organ pieces, synth work on some of Heart's or ELPs cuts...it's there, deep, accurate, clean and visceral.

Highs? Have you really(and I mean really) listened to live music? They(the highs) drop off quite distinctly depending on distance from the source. Do you really listen to trumpet, et al with your ears to the bell? On a close-miked recording with conventional loudspeakers, that's exactly what is happening...hardly realistic, IMHO.

Indulge me, if you will...Placement is critical, I built a side wall to be sure the installation parameters would match side to side. My power amp is an HK Citation 19 rated @100W/side and I use an SAE 2700B half-octave equalizer. My system is EQd from stylus to listening position. Using a calibrated source( a Crown third-octave test record) and a borrowed pro SPL meter(which by-the-by, the RS unit compares favorably with in side-by-side usage). Multiple room plots and adjustments resulted in near-flat response...but, flat ain't where it's at...a gentle roll-off above 10k provides the most natural sound to me and most of the pots are in the "cut" mode; the few that aren't are +3db max. The Bose eq is used to tweak lesser recordings and the tone controls on my pre-amp are bypassed with the "defeat" switch.

The sound is neither bottom-heavy nor shrill, the net result is smooth sound, uncompromising in its' candor. Good recordings sound as they should and poor ones are revealed...Listener fatgue does not apply and the catch-phrases are all at the ready: imaging and depth, inner details, articulation...an acoustic bass sounds as it should, brushes on a drum kit, ditto. But, only if the source can provide these things.

Comparing Bose to anything else is like the proverbial "apples and oranges" and those who base an opinon of their sound on a Bose-equipped system that has not been set up correctly don't know what they are missing, how unfortunate. And, don't think they are properly set up in a Bose store, quite curiously they're not!

Audie

N. Abstentia
04-12-2004, 10:00 AM
GOOD speakers won't need an EQ. Bose speakers REQUIRE an EQ. What does that tell you?

3db
04-12-2004, 10:07 AM
GOOD speakers won't need an EQ. Bose speakers REQUIRE an EQ. What does that tell you?

Good speakers can't make up for poor room acoustics and I can think of many instances were good speakers would benefir from eq.

N. Abstentia
04-12-2004, 10:13 AM
An EQ can't fix a bad room either. They make acoustical room treatments for that. How many people install a $5,000 system, then install a $75 EQ to try to fix the sound?

bturk667
04-12-2004, 10:19 AM
Let those who bash Bose do so, who cares. As long as like the way they sound , well, is not that all that matters?

Audie Oghaisle
04-12-2004, 10:24 AM
GOOD speakers won't need an EQ. Bose speakers REQUIRE an EQ. What does that tell you?

Do you use tone controls? What about all the other equalization that occurs in the recording and playback process? RIAA phono eq, tape deck eq, auditorium tweaking, speaker placement. Whether its mechanical OR electronic, its all eq.

Bose eq does what it does to shape the sound produced and my further eq helps tame room problems...properly done, it certainly makes more sense than relying on wires and the like...

Audie

topspeed
04-12-2004, 10:57 AM
Glad you like your 901's Audie. I think Skeptic here has a pair lying around as well and hopefully he'll chime in on this. While I think it's every person's perogative, especially in a field as purely subjective as audio, to like or dislike any particular piece of equipment, you're being awfully bold by taking the "Bose Bashers" to task with statements like:

Have you really(and I mean really) listened to live music?
I'd be careful here as there are many members here that are not only avid concert goers but there are also quite few musicians and audio engineers as well. By making this statement, you appear to be questioning the perceptive abilities of people that do not prefer Bose.


Comparing Bose to anything else is like the proverbial "apples and oranges" and those who base an opinon of their sound on a Bose-equipped system that has not been set up correctly don't know what they are missing, how unfortunate
You could be right on this. My counterpoint would be that speakers should not be that difficult to position in the first place. Even "State of the Art" speakers such as the Wilson W/P7, JM Lab Grand Utopia Be (which is a beast), or Maggie 20.1's rarely require the level of "dialing-in" that you did for the 901's.

I've heard many Bose systems from the 901s3' down do those horrid little Lifestyle systems and have two problems with Bose:
1) Their sound is not my cup of tea (no biggie, that's what audio's about)
2) The prices they charge seem excessive for what you get, particularily with their Lifestyle systems.

FWIW, I'm happy for any person that has found audio nirvana, regardless of what they listen to. I will however, question any person that claims that their gear is the alpha and omega of audio and anything else is inferior. That's just being short sighted.

Audie Oghaisle
04-12-2004, 11:24 AM
I am a musician and a semi-serious recordist. My reference to live music was intended to make reference to natural hi freq roll-off...the equivalent of a tweeter at ear level >10ft away doesn't normally happen in a live setting, particularly in orchestral settings...lotsa things happen on the way...close miked material further exacerbates that situation.

Speaker placement and tweaking to refine the presentation and/or ameliorate problems is part of the hobby to me...it's surprising what information can be gleaned in the process. Using and understanding how equalization (both mechanical AND electronic)can affect delicate frequency relationships, which further affects overall psychoacoustic properties and sound perception, is quite a revelation.

Audie

RGA
04-12-2004, 11:28 AM
Why defend your speaker - people will attack it Bose or not. There is no perfect speaker - simpy dumping Bose marketing on people by trying to claim it's accurate won't fly because it ain't...no speaker is. Bose, the 901 included, have their faults just as other speaker makers have. Truthfully Bose is not as bad as people say they are. They are in my view bad value in that they charge say $600.00 for a speaker that compete resonably well with other manufacturer's speakers selling for $250.00. That is why they get a bad rap. The enormous price tag in the $3k Cdn range of the Lifestyle system for what is essentially no better than a $200.00 boom box is no help in winning over serious audiophiles. Then these products being so painfully bad for so much money gives them a bad reputation and people then attack the 901 I suspect without ever hearing them.

I don't particularly like the way the 901 does soundstage, imaging, dynamics and bass. Multiple drivers also create large phase problems that a single driver does not create and slugs the sound having to drive multiple drivers. There is zero advantage to multiple drivers - provided you know how to properly design a two-way system. Since most don't they go to sticking a lot more drivers in a box.

You do note thatthey don't give listening fatigue - and on that alone they're better than a lot of speakers using fatiguing metal tweeters. But the 901 has a car speaker sound to them of blah to me - you need SOME extension. If you've owned them that long chances are you will be so accustomed to that particular sound that anything else would come across as a shock. Tough to give up smoking too - even if it's good for you.

3db
04-12-2004, 11:28 AM
An EQ can't fix a bad room either. They make acoustical room treatments for that. How many people install a $5,000 system, then install a $75 EQ to try to fix the sound?

There's the wife acceptance factor that needs to be dealt with. If the room acoustics aren't way out of wack, then an eq could be used to correct the sound.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-12-2004, 12:06 PM
I recently came across a recent episode of the never-ending to and fro re: the 901s...let me say to all and sundry, and I'll use a line I've read countless times in other forums @this site, "You don't know how to listen!"

Most members ot the "boom and tizz" brigade (long-time readers of the late, lamented "AUDIO" mag will recognize that phrase) are so use to hearing "in-your-face" hi freqs, they believe it to be a hallmark of accurate sound...and the low freq humps designed into most loudspeakers to disguise their rapidly-falling off, below mid-bass reponses...well, let's not go there!

I have owned 901 Series lls since 1974. I auditioned Allisons, Advents, Dahlquists(pre-mirror imaging mods) etc., etc. and chose Bose.

Why? To me, all the reasons pertaining to their design and execution made perfect sense. Multiple small drivers producing the output of a single 12" woofer with less mass, no hangover, none of the drawbacks of the larger cone. They theoretically can and, in practice do, provide crisp and accurate transients and do extend well into the nether areas...talk about basso profundo!

On a wide range of low freq-rich program material, whether it be the tympani in Copland's "Fanfare For The Common Man" , E. Power Biggs pedal work on Bach's organ pieces, synth work on some of Heart's or ELPs cuts...it's there, deep, accurate, clean and visceral.

Highs? Have you really(and I mean really) listened to live music? They(the highs) drop off quite distinctly depending on distance from the source. Do you really listen to trumpet, et al with your ears to the bell? On a close-miked recording with conventional loudspeakers, that's exactly what is happening...hardly realistic, IMHO.

Indulge me, if you will...Placement is critical, I built a side wall to be sure the installation parameters would match side to side. My power amp is an HK Citation 19 rated @100W/side and I use an SAE 2700B half-octave equalizer. My system is EQd from stylus to listening position. Using a calibrated source( a Crown third-octave test record) and a borrowed pro SPL meter(which by-the-by, the RS unit compares favorably with in side-by-side usage). Multiple room plots and adjustments resulted in near-flat response...but, flat ain't where it's at...a gentle roll-off above 10k provides the most natural sound to me and most of the pots are in the "cut" mode; the few that aren't are +3db max. The Bose eq is used to tweak lesser recordings and the tone controls on my pre-amp are bypassed with the "defeat" switch.

The sound is neither bottom-heavy nor shrill, the net result is smooth sound, uncompromising in its' candor. Good recordings sound as they should and poor ones are revealed...Listener fatgue does not apply and the catch-phrases are all at the ready: imaging and depth, inner details, articulation...an acoustic bass sounds as it should, brushes on a drum kit, ditto. But, only if the source can provide these things.

Comparing Bose to anything else is like the proverbial "apples and oranges" and those who base an opinon of their sound on a Bose-equipped system that has not been set up correctly don't know what they are missing, how unfortunate. And, don't think they are properly set up in a Bose store, quite curiously they're not!

Audie

Sir,

I am sorry, but your arguements in favor of the 901 are hollow at there very best.


Most members ot the "boom and tizz" brigade (long-time readers of the late, lamented "AUDIO" mag will recognize that phrase) are so use to hearing "in-your-face" hi freqs, they believe it to be a hallmark of accurate sound...and the low freq humps designed into most loudspeakers to disguise their rapidly-falling off, below mid-bass reponses...well, let's not go there!

This is a huge sweeping inflammatory generalization that is made to give foundation to your point. However this doesn't describe 80% of the speakers that are in the 901's price catagory. If the 901 was measured in the same fashion as other speakers in this price catagory, it would measure worst than at least 90% of them because of the comb filtering, and phase/frequency aberrations caused by the mixing of the direct and reflected output.


I have owned 901 Series lls since 1974. I auditioned Allisons, Advents, Dahlquists(pre-mirror imaging mods) etc., etc. and chose Bose.

None of these speaker companies exist anymore. Try a comparison with Dunalavy, Thiel, Aerial Acoustics, and as much as I dislike this kind of speaker Martin Logans. These are todays companies turning out speakers that would put the 901's to absolute shame.


Why? To me, all the reasons pertaining to their design and execution made perfect sense. Multiple small drivers producing the output of a single 12" woofer with less mass, no hangover, none of the drawbacks of the larger cone. They theoretically can and, in practice do, provide crisp and accurate transients and do extend well into the nether areas...talk about basso profundo!

There is only one problem with your theory. It takes mass to reproduce bass under 40hz. The size of the drivers, and the internal volume of the 901 makes anything under 40hz impossible to reproduce without a great deal of distortion. What is worse is the 901 suffer from a problem of its design, and its interaction with small room acoustics on a couple of levels. By the way, according to Stereophile, the 901 does suffer from hangover. The worst kind of driver hangover. All of its 9 drivers suffer from hangover in varying degrees which is worse than a single driver with the same effect. Now let's talk about the basso profundo that you say is a 901 strong point.

Room resonances:
The fact that, in a living room of typical size, the strongest standing-wave resonances usually occur at low frequencies, is the main reason why putting a speaker in a corner will produce the most bass-heavy sound. Once we get out of the corner, though, the efficiency with which each standing wave is stimulated will depend on the speaker's precise location relative to the room corner.
The crucial factor seems to be the location in the room from which the woofer(s) are feeding energy into it. Thus, it is often (usually, in fact) possible to obtain flatter overall response with a single relatively small woofer, which radiates from a small area, than from a multi-woofer system whose low end radiates from a general area that may be several feet wide.
By the same token, loudspeakers which radiate their lows in one direction (they are nondirectional after they leave the speaker) seem less prone to excite all the room resonances than ones which radiate from front and rear or front and sides. True omnidirectional (360-degree) bass radiators make it harder still to control standing waves, and that appears to be one of the problems with the Bose 901
Thus placement and the quality of the bass ouput of the 901 is totally inconsistant from room to room. No good CONSISTANT results can be obtain from the 901's bass output because instead of outputting from a single point in a corner like a good subwoofer, it is coming from a VERY wide point at that corner which definately excites standing waves at a much greater degree than a single driver subwoofer. Therefore in some rooms the 901 can sound passable, but in MOST rooms it will sound one notey and indistinct. This does not bode well for a speaker that is supposed to go into many different rooms, with many different room deminsions.

Room reflection and Concert hall ambience:

Dr Bose seems to operate on the principle that his speaker are designed to simulate(very important word here) the multiple reflections of a concert hall. This is a flimsy premise for small rooms which are too small to support concert hall size reverberation(or reflections). Let's face it, my listening room does not have the deminsions of Boston Symphony Hall. It therefore CANNOT produce a reflection pattern that resembles that hall. Hall reverberation requires a long decay for which my room, nor most listening rooms can support. Keep in mind that it is up to the recording to convey the recorded ambience, not up to the speaker to create some. The multiple reflections emited from the 901 does nothing more than to create a frequency comb filter which alters the natural timbre and tonal qualities of the recorded signal. If accuracy is your main goal, then the 901 fails from the jump. What is worse it that the driver facing the listening position emits very little signal directly to the ears, while the sound of the rearward facing drivers produces the most output. Once the rearward output reflects off the walls and into the room, it is out of phase with the signal from the front panel. The combination of these two signals at the ears produces an unwanted phase shift and time smearing. These phase shifts produce short notches in the frequency response depending on frequency. This is what the 901 uses to broaden the sound source at the expense of small detail and tonal shadings. The 901 does this to EVERY recording regardless of whether it was recorded that way. If a Steinway grand was mean't to be heard spread in between the speakers, with the 901 it will sound like it is as wide as the room itself. This effect while very noticeable with solo instruments, makes mass instruments lose image definition and true scale. In other words proper placement between the speakers.

In these days of hometheater and 5.1 audio, these speakers have outlived their usefulness. There is no need to scatter artificial reflections all over the room to simulate a live concert hall. A well calibrate 5.1 system of tonally matched speakers and a VERY good sub can do this with ease.


Indulge me, if you will...Placement is critical, I built a side wall to be sure the installation parameters would match side to side. My power amp is an HK Citation 19 rated @100W/side and I use an SAE 2700B half-octave equalizer. My system is EQd from stylus to listening position. Using a calibrated source( a Crown third-octave test record) and a borrowed pro SPL meter(which by-the-by, the RS unit compares favorably with in side-by-side usage). Multiple room plots and adjustments resulted in near-flat response...but, flat ain't where it's at...a gentle roll-off above 10k provides the most natural sound to me and most of the pots are in the "cut" mode; the few that aren't are +3db max

With all due respect to you, a half octave equalizer is useless in trying to eq a speaker where all of the drivers face foward. It is LESS than useless in dealing with the output of a speaker where the majority of the output is scattered everywhere. A third octave test disc has a smoothing effect of a speaker that exibits as much of a combing effect as this one. 1/6 and 1/10 octave anaylsis is much more revealing of a speakers frequency response. I highly doubt that you attained a flat response from this speaker at any point whether in front, sides, or rear.(according to a stereophile review of the speaker, it could NOT be made flat in four different rooms). A SPL meter, and a test disc is an EXTREMELY crude way of measuring a speaker. It tell you nothing about what is going on in the time domain. It also has no way of gating out room reflections which can alter what you measure by a great degree. Based on my understanding of room acoustics(Acoustics was my graduate minor), and my experience measuring speakers for installation in my clients homes, there is no way you can get a near flat measurement from a 901 even if you were to overlay the different plots you measured and average them together. With a speaker of this type, it is virtually impossible.


Highs? Have you really(and I mean really) listened to live music? They(the highs) drop off quite distinctly depending on distance from the source. Do you really listen to trumpet, et al with your ears to the bell? On a close-miked recording with conventional loudspeakers, that's exactly what is happening...hardly realistic, IMHO.

You are correct in your first sentence. However the distance it takes for the highs to drop off in comparison the the 901(without eq) is alot further than the distance to the rear wall of the typical listening room. Since we listen in the near field, high should remain the same as the recording provides at the common distance that most of us sit from our speakers. If a trumpet is close mike, it should sound close mike. That's called accuracy, and it is indeed as realistic as the recording conveys. That same trumpet will bell will sound 2-3ft wide on a 901, which is WAY less realistic when the bell of a trumpet is perhaps 7-10" wide at is widest flare. Since you are normally sitting 6-10ft from your speakers, I can hardly see(or hear if you will) how it would soundlike your ears on the bell. Huge exaggeration here I must say.

I believe I can stop right here. I have made my point. I believe that you have been a victim of Dr. Bose's brainwashing. I have several magazines with reviews of the above mention speaker, and none of them even remotely report a flat(or even a near flat) frequency response from them. Most applaud them for their spaciousness, but say they are weak at best in every other measured area. If I where you, in the future I would choose a more conventional speaker to blab about. There is VERY good chance it would measure better than the 901, and therefore offer you some cover from your audacious claims of merit for this speaker. In the plain language of my people of Manhattan, you could lie and hide!

Audie Oghaisle
04-12-2004, 12:21 PM
that's rich...

Audie

N. Abstentia
04-12-2004, 12:33 PM
Do you use tone controls? What about all the other equalization that occurs in the recording and playback process? RIAA phono eq, tape deck eq, auditorium tweaking, speaker placement. Whether its mechanical OR electronic, its all eq.

Bose eq does what it does to shape the sound produced and my further eq helps tame room problems...properly done, it certainly makes more sense than relying on wires and the like...

Audie

No, I don't use tone controls. They add too much noise to the signal path, and I won't buy a preamp that does not have defeatable tone controls.

RIAA phono EQ? I thought that RIAA thing was just a phono preamp that allows you to hook a turntable up to any RCA input? Did I misunderstand that one?

Tape deck..gave up on cassettes in 1991.

Auditorium tweaking..well I don't live in an auditorium so I don't need that.

Speaker placement..when done right you won't need an EQ. If you think you need an EQ to fix sound problems, you have either crappy speakers, don't have them set up right, or your room is not properly damped.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-12-2004, 12:34 PM
that's rich...

Audie

I thought you would like that!!!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-12-2004, 12:46 PM
Speaker placement..when done right you won't need an EQ. If you think you need an EQ to fix sound problems, you have either crappy speakers, don't have them set up right, or your room is not properly damped.

Speaker placement cannot always solve acoustical problems(they lie mostly in the deep bass region). Each move of the speaker creates another one at some point. Acoustical treatment is effective down to about 200hz and then it becomes EXTREMELY expensive(and the foam VERY thick) to fix acoustical problems with treatment.

It is at that point, and in combination with acoustical treatment that Eq DOES become quite cost effective, and just plain effective in dealing with acoustical problems. Place your speakers, treat your room, and when all else hasn't worked(and it occasionally does not) use eq in the bass frequencies to tame/reduce standing waves.

RomCrazy
04-12-2004, 05:19 PM
I am inclined to agree with topspeed in this one, if you like the sound you are getting, that's all that counts right? I am not a Bose fan, but the fact is, they are considered by a lot of people to be in the "high" end of audio equipment, and that reputation is not going away. If you enjoy you're 901s, then don't let ANYONE who says that they are less of a speaker than any that they have get to you. Audio is all about preferance. I live in an Air Force dorm, and get comments constantly on why I paid over $1000 for my two channel system when they paid less than $100 and got a full "high performance" surround system. It all comes down to whatever the listener wants to hear.


(As for me, I'll stick with my PSBs for a while :) )

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-12-2004, 06:09 PM
I am inclined to agree with topspeed in this one, if you like the sound you are getting, that's all that counts right? I am not a Bose fan, but the fact is, they are considered by a lot of people to be in the "high" end of audio equipment, and that reputation is not going away. If you enjoy you're 901s, then don't let ANYONE who says that they are less of a speaker than any that they have get to you. Audio is all about preferance. I live in an Air Force dorm, and get comments constantly on why I paid over $1000 for my two channel system when they paid less than $100 and got a full "high performance" surround system. It all comes down to whatever the listener wants to hear.


(As for me, I'll stick with my PSBs for a while :) )

RomCrazy,

I agree with topspeed also. However I would take a long hard pause before I enter a audio website and tell people that the 901's are a top notch speaker that is comparible with speakers from manufacturers that have long been defunct. I would also be very careful in NOT attempting to post so called facts that are simply not true, and use useless inflammatory language to support what I believe. An opinion is an opinion. And like butts we have one. Facts are facts, and sometimes we come up wanting in this area.

I don't think anyone in this day in time REALLY thinks the bose 901 is a high end speaker. Not in the company of today. Maybe 20 years ago, but not today.

N. Abstentia
04-12-2004, 07:58 PM
Yeah, I agree somewhat. If YOU like the sound of the speakers then fine. Knock yourself out.

However, the problem I have with Bose people is that they come here and say "Bose sounds better than anything, I don't care what you say, and if you disagree you are stupid, deaf, both, or don't know anything about speakers."

THAT'S what chaps my arse. If you like them, fine. Keep it to yourself. We all know better, and a sales pitch is not going to change our thinking.

Audie Oghaisle
04-13-2004, 04:46 AM
Did I ever suggest folks run right out and purchase a Bose product? Some of you think me a shill?

No. I merely gave my opinion of MY system...gave my position on those who dismiss things out-of-hand and suggested how unfortunate it is that very few have had the pleasure of listening to a properly set up system, which admittedly is not everyone's cup of tea; so be it.

In order to realize pleasing results, I have chosen optimum placement and the use of eq...perhaps I would have been better off with tip-toes, trial-and error bass traps or other non-WAF methods, sand, lead shot, concrete blocks, styrofoam cups or wires as tone controls...yeah, that's a plan.

Additionally, I have limited my comments to the Series lls, the last acoustic suspension model produced. The subsequent matrix/bass-reflex hold little interest for me and I have never seriously listened to them. I would never buy a Lifestyle system, but only because I prefer the flexibility of separate components. Other Bose products, the smaller cubes and subs, seem to be capable of high WAF numbers, and properly set up would seem to be useful for moderate HT systems(which are in themselves a plague on the audio landscape). Price? Well that's a whole 'nother area...I won a Wave Radio, took pains to load it correctly and I now have a jim-dandy clock radio which sounds quite good for what it is...would I buy one? I don't really think so.

Specifically to N. Absentia...you might want to take the time to research your hobby...you are confusing a phono pre-amp, now pretty much required for TT use(due to the blight of HT) and head amps for MC carts with the RIAA equalization curve...cutting records requires skewing the signal to the cutter heads to reduce excessive groove excursion. The RIAA curve applies the inverse of that eq curve to produce a flat response in playback. BTW, did you ever consider the eq-ing and signal processing involved in the recording process; tone controls are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

As I recall, there was a time Polks were considered by some to be the cats-@$$...nowadays Matthews' advertising has really gone right up the nose of the fickle who eschew them as much as the use of tone controls...Bad Mathhew, bad, bad, bad.

Audie

E-Stat
04-13-2004, 05:23 AM
Audie,

While their peculiar sound is not my cup of tea, I'd say if you enjoy them, then who cares what everyone else says?

The best speakers in my experience don't use midrange drivers as subwoofers, though.

rw

Audie Oghaisle
04-13-2004, 05:41 AM
"...and tell people that the 901's are a top notch speaker..."

I said this? When?

"...that is comparible with speakers from manufacturers that have long been defunct..."

You have a problem with contemporaneous comparison?

"...I would also be very careful in NOT attempting to post so called facts that are simply not true..."

Facts. I posted facts? Charts? Graphs? Numbers? Where? Oh, do point them out!

"...and use useless inflammatory language to support what I believe..."

Again, please point out what language produces these flames...you might consider a contextual re-read.

"...I don't think anyone in this day in time REALLY thinks the bose 901 is a high end speaker..."

This is becoming tediously painful...let me put it in simpler terms...me say this when?

And yeah, nowadays you could do an FFT and get a 3-d, time aligned plot and get a parametric to work wonders... a third-octave source and a half-octave eq w/ an SPL meter did a quite satisfactory job...

Audie

Sealed
04-13-2004, 05:49 AM
"To all the playah haytah's in da house...don't hate da playah, hate da game"

Bose 901 vs other brands?

Rotten apples to oranges.

enjoy them anyway.

bturk667
04-13-2004, 06:30 AM
Sorry, I would rather hate the players!

Sealed
04-13-2004, 06:32 AM
Most members ot the "boom and tizz" brigade (long-time readers of the late, lamented "AUDIO" mag will recognize that phrase) are so use to hearing "in-your-face" hi freqs, they believe it to be a hallmark of accurate sound...
>>That is a worthless, broad, unfounded generalization that has nothing to do with high end. Accurate sound is even frequency response at the least, not an emphasis in the treble. So that statement, is baseless, and without merit.

and the low freq humps designed into most loudspeakers to disguise their rapidly-falling off, below mid-bass reponses...well, let's not go there!
>>You are referring to other midfi brands available at discount chains like circuit city, not high end. This is pure claptrap.

I have owned 901 Series lls since 1974. I auditioned Allisons, Advents, Dahlquists(pre-mirror imaging mods) etc., etc. and chose Bose.
>>Good for you.

Why? To me, all the reasons pertaining to their design and execution made perfect sense. Multiple small drivers producing the output of a single 12" woofer with less mass,
>> That in itself means nothing. Bigger motors move bigger mass just as well as smaller motors move smaller mass. This is a trite statement.

no hangover, none of the drawbacks of the larger cone.
>>There are no drawbacks of a well designed larger cone. Any inference to cone size having direct superiority is patently false.

They theoretically can and, in practice do, provide crisp and accurate transients and do extend well into the nether areas...talk about basso profundo!
>> The nether areas? Is that the same as the 45hz roll off point? Basso profundo starts below 40hz, where bose has little significant energy. (Or accurate energy for that matter)

On a wide range of low freq-rich program material, whether it be the tympani in Copland's "Fanfare For The Common Man" , E. Power Biggs pedal work on Bach's organ pieces, synth work on some of Heart's or ELPs cuts...it's there, deep, accurate, clean and visceral.
>>Especially since bose is eq’s to provide a midbass rise, and exaggerate 60hz. Hence the label “mid bass and mid treble eq”

Highs? Have you really(and I mean really) listened to live music?
>> yes, sounds nothing like bose.

They(the highs) drop off quite distinctly depending on distance from the source.
>>That’s a fundamental law of sound energy.

Do you really listen to trumpet, et al with your ears to the bell? On a close-miked recording with conventional loudspeakers, that's exactly what is happening...hardly realistic, IMHO.
>>That would be only YOUR opinion, but not a fact.

The sound is neither bottom-heavy nor shrill, the net result is smooth sound, uncompromising in its' candor.
>>except for the spitty sizzle of the bose whizzer cones, but..ok.

Good recordings sound as they should and poor ones are revealed...
>>on other speakers, but not bose.

Listener fatgue does not apply
>>it does to me, I hate the grainy, spitty, rolled off treble.

and the catch-phrases are all at the ready: imaging and depth, inner details, articulation...an acoustic bass sounds as it should, brushes on a drum kit, ditto. But, only if the source can provide these things.

>>but since the bose rolls off hard at 13.5khz, it can’t reproduce such details. No one could use bose to master a recording because of the gross Doppler distortion and horribly rolled off extremes. (If you can call 13.5 khz and 45 hz extremes)

Comparing Bose to anything else is like the proverbial "apples and oranges" and those who base an opinon of their sound on a Bose-equipped system that has not been set up correctly don't know what they are missing, how unfortunate. And, don't think they are properly set up in a Bose store, quite curiously they're not!
>> Actually, I have listened to bose off and on since 1976. They are ok for casual, noncritical listening but are the diametrically opposed thing to accuracy or flat, full range. Response.




Audie

This whole thing sounds like a Bose sales pitch

topspeed
04-13-2004, 07:09 AM
As I recall, there was a time Polks were considered by some to be the cats-@$$...nowadays Matthews' advertising has really gone right up the nose of the fickle who eschew them as much as the use of tone controls...Bad Mathhew, bad, bad, bad.Audie

You've actually got a point on this one. Audio people seem to carry a bizarre chromosone that flares up everytime an audio manufacturer goes "mainstream". It's the same one that forces them to call their favorite band a "sell-out" when their music becomes part of the pop culture (as if it's the bands fault that tastes evolve). Lest we forget, Infinity and JBL also used to make VERY good speakers that were "hi-end" not too long ago. However, as soon as they started selling to the mass market, they lost all credibility with audiophiles. How often do you see members here recommending Polk, Inifinity, or JBL these days instead of Von Schweikert, Green Mountain, Taylor, JM Lab, or some other name that very few have even heard of? Does anybody else remember the thread about 6 months ago about Totem being carried in a chain and the poster questioning their validity as a mid-fi, hi-fi brand? Tweeter carries Sonus Faber, does that mean the products are now automatically inferior?

Interesting point Audie...but I still don't care for Bose ;)

Audie Oghaisle
04-13-2004, 07:12 AM
...for your opinion...it is as valueless to me as mine is to you.

Audie

Audie Oghaisle
04-13-2004, 08:21 AM
..anyone to rush right out and buy a Bose product, just relating my experience with the one I do own...I really don't give a ratz@$$...just watching the feeding frenzy on the part of some...

Regardless of other opinions, I believe the multiple drivers with eq, can and do provide quite respectable bass performance...there are a coupla' cuts...one on ELPs "Brain Salad Surgery" if memory serves me correctly and Heart's "Magic Man" where a synth note does sort of a nose-dive reverse glissando down to the Marianas Trench sonically...as reproduced on my system, it is smooth and even, no false humps, no sharp cutoffs, to a point where one can nearly count the cycles.

In the same vein, on Herb Ellis' and Red Mitchell's "Doggin' Around" there is a cut "Big M And the Bear"(I think that's the title) featuring Mitchell's stand-up bass...nicely articulated, sharp transients, deep low notes and proper sounding higher ones. Anyone who has actually heard jazz bass, knows there is a range of notes that will be augmented and resonate with the sound box of the instrument as a product of sympathetic vibrations and those outside the optimum range which will be less powerful but none the less identifiable as being produced by a bass fiddle...I get that...When it's captured in the source, I also get fingers sliding on the round-wound string's surface...nothing sloppy, no indiscriminate thumps.

Some time back, Audio mag had a column entitled "Auricle". Based solely on aural perception of high-end gear...As I recall, they did a review of a direct-to-disc recording of Charlie Byrd and his combo...White, heavyweight, virgin vinyl...45rpm...all the bells and whistles associated with the then "state-of-the-art"...they loved it, raved about the soundstage and depth, the near-eerie presence of the cornet player...one complaint...rimshots on the snare were a mile wide.

They did a really wonderful word-picture of the disk, so I head on out to my local audio "salon" purchase it and give it a lisssen...see just how lousy my gear is...just as described, a very, very impressive piece of work, imaging, the horn player and the snare...just as described...I can only relate my experience and you can believe me or not.
They work, if you know how to listen to them.

And I do listen to other gear in the shops, I've liked some electrostatics and B&Ws weren't bad, a bit directional but not bad...and I do have a pair of STAX SR-44s with a dedicated amp and source...I do keep in touch with convention and "reality"...

Audie

Sealed
04-13-2004, 08:35 AM
..anyone to rush right out and buy a Bose product, just relating my experience with the one I do own...I really don't give a ratz@$$...just watching the feeding frenzy on the part of some...

Regardless of other opinions, I believe the multiple drivers with eq, can and do provide quite respectable bass performance...there are a coupla' cuts...one on ELPs "Brain Salad Surgery" if memory serves me correctly and Heart's "Magic Man" where a synth note does sort of a nose-dive reverse glissando down to the Marianas Trench sonically...as reproduced on my system, it is smooth and even, no false humps, no sharp cutoffs, to a point where one can nearly count the cycles.

In the same vein, on Herb Ellis' and Red Mitchell's "Doggin' Around" there is a cut "Big M And the Bear"(I think that's the title) featuring Mitchell's stand-up bass...nicely articulated, sharp transients, deep low notes and proper sounding higher ones. Anyone who has actually heard jazz bass, knows there is a range of notes that will be augmented and resonate with the sound box of the instrument as a product of sympathetic vibrations and those outside the optimum range which will be less powerful but none the less identifiable as being produced by a bass fiddle...I get that...When it's captured in the source, I also get fingers sliding on the round-wound string's surface...nothing sloppy, no indiscriminate thumps.

Some time back, Audio mag had a column entitled "Auricle". Based solely on aural perception of high-end gear...As I recall, they did a review of a direct-to-disc recording of Charlie Byrd and his combo...White, heavyweight, virgin vinyl...45rpm...all the bells and whistles associated with the then "state-of-the-art"...they loved it, raved about the soundstage and depth, the near-eerie presence of the cornet player...one complaint...rimshots on the snare were a mile wide.

They did a really wonderful word-picture of the disk, so I head on out to my local audio "salon" purchase it and give it a lisssen...see just how lousy my gear is...just as described, a very, very impressive piece of work, imaging, the horn player and the snare...just as described...I can only relate my experience and you can believe me or not.
They work, if you know how to listen to them.

And I do listen to other gear in the shops, I've liked some electrostatics and B&Ws weren't bad, a bit directional but not bad...and I do have a pair of STAX SR-44s with a dedicated amp and source...I do keep in touch with convention and "reality"...

Audie

Audio never had a love for bose. "boom and sizzle" or "boom and tizz" was the way they described most bose products, including a very negative 601 review.

Anthony B Cordesman, who now writes for TAS wrote Auricle. He detests Bose. His personal system (one of them), is the VMPS Supertower III which he purchased after a review.

Now, if you told me that those big speakers effortlessly went to 16hz, I'd believe it. But bose?

The reason bose reviews draw flames, is because they are written like one is describing an ultra high end system. The reviews (like yours) give bose charactaristics that are outside the operational parameters of the system.

If you had said you thouroughly enjoy bose for the soundstage and effects, and reach sonic bliss, I doubt anyone would critisize that much.

But when you obviously target real highend systems with your comments, you will draw flack.

You can admit you enjoy bose. You can love them. But don't tell me they can accurately reproduce the bottom of 1812's cannon shots, because that isn't possible with 901's. Not my law, just physics.

And don't tell anyone bose has brilliant treble detail when the design was in fact measured to roll off sigificantly under 14khz, or less than am radio. You can hear what isn't there by design.


BTW, I have all of those recordings, many on Lp and cd. The bass in heart doesn't go all that deep, it's more 30's and 40's. That is verifiable on any system that is capable of reproducing it, not just mine.

Audie Oghaisle
04-13-2004, 08:44 AM
No further text

JSE
04-13-2004, 08:48 AM
"Thank you... for your opinion...it is as valueless to me as mine is to you."

"I really don't give a ratz@$$...just watching the feeding frenzy on the part of some..."


Then GO AWAY TROLL!

Go away!

JSE

Audie Oghaisle
04-13-2004, 08:55 AM
Those who give respect get respect...

Perhaps I should clarify my statements since you have decided to take them out of context...naah, not worth the effort...

Thank you for your opinion...it is as...get my drift?

Audie

Sealed
04-13-2004, 09:22 AM
Those who give respect get respect...

Perhaps I should clarify my statements since you have decided to take them out of context...naah, not worth the effort...

Thank you for your opinion...it is as...get my drift?

Audie

I really didn't slam you per se. I just framed the 901 capabilities back to reality, not science fiction.

this is not much different then a post I once read about a small 2-way with a 6.5' woofer that supposidly "Made so much bass it shook my house."

That fellow had as little concept of reality as your post.

Nothing was taken out of context, except the fact that you appear to be a sales droid pushing bose like "sam pro" ring any bells?

Audie Oghaisle
04-13-2004, 09:52 AM
Sealed or JSE? I thought the new site system was supposed to straighten out the multiple-moniker problems.

"...I really didn't slam you per se..."

Really? Just like your not doing now?

"... I just framed the 901 capabilities back to reality, not science fiction..."

I'm a liar? I didin't take a series of serious measurments with my woefully inadequate test gear? They are not capable of the performance levels as stated?

"...this is not much different then a post I once read about a small 2-way with a 6.5' woofer that supposidly "Made so much bass it shook my house."..."

It could happen. I've heard a two-way with a 5.5in driver produce far more accurate bass than it oughta'. It's all relative. Threatening concept?

"...That fellow had as little concept of reality as your post..."

I'm delusional? Hearing things?

"...Nothing was taken out of context..."

In your mind, perhaps.

"...except the fact that you appear to be a sales droid pushing bose like "sam pro" ring any bells?..."

You mean 901 Series lls...haven't been produced since 1970-when...some shill, pushing one set of 30 year-old MD gear...

Thank you...you know the drill...doncha'

Audie

Sealed
04-13-2004, 09:54 AM
Sealed or JSE? I thought the new site system was supposed to straighten out the multiple-moniker problems.

"...I really didn't slam you per se..."

Really? Just like your not doing now?

"... I just framed the 901 capabilities back to reality, not science fiction..."

I'm a liar? I didin't take a series of serious measurments with my woefully inadequate test gear? They are not capable of the performance levels as stated?

"...this is not much different then a post I once read about a small 2-way with a 6.5' woofer that supposidly "Made so much bass it shook my house."..."

It could happen. I've heard a two-way with a 5.5in driver produce far more accurate bass than it oughta'. It's all relative. Threatening concept?

"...That fellow had as little concept of reality as your post..."

I'm delusional? Hearing things?

"...Nothing was taken out of context..."

In your mind, perhaps.

"...except the fact that you appear to be a sales droid pushing bose like "sam pro" ring any bells?..."

You mean 901 Series lls...haven't been produced since 1970-when...some shill, pushing one set of 30 year-old MD gear...

Thank you...you know the drill...doncha'

Audie

I thought I smelled a troll. I was right.

Audie Oghaisle
04-13-2004, 10:01 AM
No further text

Sealed
04-13-2004, 10:48 AM
No further text

Then I was 100% correct,

You are a naughty, naughty assmonkey troll!

Thanks for confirming.

Audie Oghaisle
04-13-2004, 11:21 AM
...and we clear up loudspeakers with excessive hi freqs by changing CD players?

That's an example of your advice?

Audie

JSE
04-13-2004, 11:24 AM
Sealed or JSE? I thought the new site system was supposed to straighten out the multiple-moniker problems.


Doh! You caught us! :p

JSE

skeptic
04-13-2004, 11:27 AM
I've owned Bose 901 since 1970 so I know exactly what I am talking about. I also own and listen to other speakers. Recently I moved mine from my 20 x 20 bedroom with relatively dead acoustics to a 14 x 14 room which is on the live side. They are being powered by a Marantz SR 930 Receiver. I've been experimenting with biamplifying them using additional outboard tweeters similar to Audax AW010E1 and Dayton 275-065 four in parallel per channel---three indirect firing one direct. I have always maintained that the one real shortcoming of Bose 901 series I and II was the treble because of the high inertia of the 4 inch cones being unable to produce the highest octave of sound. My tweeters are crossed over at 6 khz and additional overall equalization is used to improve tonal accuracy. The results are outstanding. Easily a match for most loudspeakers available today and producing tremendous bass far surpassing most dedicated subwoofers. The only loudspeaker which outperforms them in bass response that I have experience with is my enhanced Teledyne AR9s. You won't find much at any price that compares with that, it is earthshaking.

A lot of people who don't know much about Bose 901 have loved bashing this product. And I must add that the versions from series III to VI are too expensive, not accurate enough, and no longer have the capability of reproducing low frequencies that series one and two did. I would not buy them today.

However, the original version when properly enhanced is IMO opinion an outstanding sound reproducer and there is no doubt of it.

SpartanFan
04-13-2004, 11:57 AM
Sound of the Bose line-up aside, why don't they publish the frequency response of there speakers? Just curious...

Bryan
04-13-2004, 12:57 PM
And you are someone whose message sounds very familiar to one who sang the praises of the Bose AM system a while back. I do believe that is game, set, match.

JSE
04-13-2004, 01:35 PM
And you are someone whose message sounds very familiar to one who sang the praises of the Bose AM system a while back. I do believe that is game, set, match.


Kindof even reminds me of ALDO as well, but not as hostile. Hmmmm?

JSE

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-13-2004, 02:16 PM
"...and tell people that the 901's are a top notch speaker..."

I said this? When?

I have owned 901 Series lls since 1974. I auditioned Allisons, Advents, Dahlquists(pre-mirror imaging mods) etc., etc. and chose Bose.?

By placing the 901's in the company of some truely top notch speakers(the Dahlquists) you are elluding that these speaker belong amoungst the top notch speakers of that time. They in fact do not, as far as performance wise.




"..."...that is comparible with speakers from manufacturers that have long been defunct..."

You have a problem with contemporaneous comparison?

A contemporaneous comparison does you no good now. You are talking about thirty years ago and just MAYBE you would have had a point(that's arguable even for that period)
But to compare 901 on April 12 2004 to speakers that were made in the 70's to make a point is pretty rediculous.



"..."...I would also be very careful in NOT attempting to post so called facts that are simply not true..."

Facts. I posted facts? Charts? Graphs? Numbers? Where? Oh, do point them out!?

1.
They theoretically can and, in practice do, provide crisp and accurate transients and do extend well into the nether areas..

2.
On a wide range of low freq-rich program material, whether it be the tympani in Copland's "Fanfare For The Common Man" , E. Power Biggs pedal work on Bach's organ pieces, synth work on some of Heart's or ELPs cuts...it's there, deep, accurate, clean and visceral.

3.
Highs? Have you really(and I mean really) listened to live music? They(the highs) drop off quite distinctly depending on distance from the source. Do you really listen to trumpet, et al with your ears to the bell? On a close-miked recording with conventional loudspeakers, that's exactly what is happening...hardly realistic, IMHO.


My system is EQd from stylus to listening position. Using a calibrated source( a Crown third-octave test record) and a borrowed pro SPL meter(which by-the-by, the RS unit compares favorably with in side-by-side usage). Multiple room plots and adjustments resulted in near-flat response...but, flat ain't where it's at...a gentle roll-off above 10k provides the most natural sound to me and most of the pots are in the "cut" mode; the few that aren't are +3db max

I didn't say you posted graph, charts. However you did insinuate a number, and most if this information is presented as factual. Let's take your factual opinion, and square it with the true facts.

1.According to the stereophile review, and measurements I took way back when at Paramount pictures, the transients provided by this speakers are blurred and soft because of the technology itself. Any time you have a weak direct wave front, followed be a strong second wavefront(the space and time depends on how far the speaker is from the front wall) the loudest wave takes dominance. In the case of the 901 the reflected rear wave takes dominace by amplitude over the front wave, even though it arrival is first. That sets up conditions for blurred transients. It also blurrs imaging and the position of the instruments in space.

2. In stereophile and my own personal measurement of the 901it cannot provide the bass as you describe. The is a rapid falloff of bass at 40hz, and is down about 15-20db by the time it get's to 20hz. While that is pretty respectable for any speaker, bass at 40hz does not have the tactility of base at 20hz. Also the distortion rises rapidly below 40hz and doubling is also a problem. Also this speaker tends to exicte all room modes and nodes because of its design. So deep accurate and clean are not what I would call the bass response of the 901.

3. The problem with highs that drop off are not small room problems. Movie theaters, concert halls, and outdoor venues have this problem. If a trumpet is close miked, its output does not mix with the air, which should not introduce any high frequency roll off whatsoever. We sit on the average between 7-10ft from our speakers. This is near field listening and that is not far enough away for the highs to fall off. A close miked trumpet should sound like a close miked trumpet regardless of what speaker it is played back. The bose expands the natural deminsion of the trumpet by reflect a majority of its ouput off the front wall and into the room. This is not accurate.

These are your opinions that are replaced by what truely known about the speakers itself as measured and commented objectively

"
...and use useless inflammatory language to support what I believe..."

Again, please point out what language produces these flames...you might consider a contextual re-read.

Here it is. And perhaps you shouldn't purchase speakers that make you have to criticize other designs to bring legitimacy to yours.


Most members ot the "boom and tizz" brigade (long-time readers of the late, lamented "AUDIO" mag will recognize that phrase) are so use to hearing "in-your-face" hi freqs, they believe it to be a hallmark of accurate sound...and the low freq humps designed into most loudspeakers to disguise their rapidly-falling off, below mid-bass reponses...well, let's not go there!

This is a inflammatory statement that is used to tear down other speaker designs, and give you room to push the direct-reflecting hogwash. Good speakers should be able to stand on their own merits without criticizing others. The words boom and tiz cannot be use to describe speakers within the price range of the bose 901. The words were outdated more than 15 years ago.



"...I don't think anyone in this day in time REALLY thinks the bose 901 is a high end speaker..."

This is becoming tediously painful...let me put it in simpler terms...me say this when?

When you mention speaker manufacuturer to the likes of Allison, Dahlquist and Advents, they produced the high end speakers of the 70's. By stating the 901 in the company of these speaker companies, you are insinuating that it belongs amoung the high end. Gotta disagree no matter how painful it is to you.


And yeah, nowadays you could do an FFT and get a 3-d, time aligned plot and get a parametric to work wonders... a third-octave source and a half-octave eq w/ an SPL meter did a quite satisfactory job...
Audie

I seriously doubt it. With a speaker that combines direct and reflecting technology, no less than 1/6 or 1/10 octave eq will truely reveal what is happening at low frequencies. A 1/3 source, SPL meter(with its frequency insensitivities), and a half octave eq will only give you the most rough, smoothed over analysis. It certainly would not give you enough resolution to obtain a flat frequency response. A tone generator, computer based analysis at 1/6 and 1/10, with a third octave, or parametric eq would do the job. You tools are insufficent to get the result you say.

What is apparent from this post is that you probably like the sound of your speakers, but you are trying to convince us to like them also, based on your opinion and not facts. I have listen to, measured, and installed too many speakers to be convinced of the performance of a particular speaker based on a word. I have heard the 901's properly setup and I am no fan of artificial reflections. The swamp the naturally recorded ambience with a speaker and room generated reflections. That IMO is NOT a good speaker if it cannot accurately reproduce what is on a master tape or CD.
Listen to your speaker and enjoy them, there is no need to convince us they sound good. We didn't buy them!

Geoffcin
04-13-2004, 02:48 PM
My experiance with Bose 901's is limited to my memory of them from the 70's. A friend of my father had a pair, and he was driving them with a VERY powerful Phase Linear amp. As I remember they played VERY loud, and the bass was VERY tight. My reccollection was that the sound was so much more life-like as compare to direct firing speakers that my father turned our speakers around to see how much of that effect it would create. ( a failed experiment, but a worthwhile one). If you've ever been to a concert, be it rock, jazz or classical, then you know that the laser like imaging, and intense point source sound of most conventional speakers is NOT what you hear. Most of the sound that is heard at a concert, unless your the conductor, is reflected. All monopole speakers are incapeable of producing such a soundstage. To Bose's credit, he saw that was the case, and produced a speaker with the idea to create that. Were they everyones "cup-o-tea"? No, but then that's why we have so many different speakers!

Does this have anything to do with the speakers that Bose produces today? Or their huge investment in marketing vs. improving the product? I don't think so.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-13-2004, 03:27 PM
My experiance with Bose 901's is limited to my memory of them from the 70's. A friend of my father had a pair, and he was driving them with a VERY powerful Phase Linear amp. As I remember they played VERY loud, and the bass was VERY tight. My reccollection was that the sound was so much more life-like as compare to direct firing speakers that my father turned our speakers around to see how much of that effect it would create. ( a failed experiment, but a worthwhile one). If you've ever been to a concert, be it rock, jazz or classical, then you know that the laser like imaging, and intense point source sound of most conventional speakers is NOT what you hear. Most of the sound that is heard at a concert, unless your the conductor, is reflected. All monopole speakers are incapeable of producing such a soundstage. To Bose's credit, he saw that was the case, and produced a speaker with the idea to create that. Were they everyones "cup-o-tea"? No, but then that's why we have so many different speakers!

Does this have anything to do with the speakers that Bose produces today? Or their huge investment in marketing vs. improving the product? I don't think so.

To answer your question, yes, I have heard this speaker and all of its versions. I have listened to them in great detail and have measured them(all versions). They may sound do called "realistic"(which is relative from person to person) but they are FAR from accurate. If you look at the frequency plot of these speakers in a room, it looks like sharks teeth.

So what if your source is supposed to be a intimate solo piano work in a small room, how is that conveyed by this speaker?

Or how about a stadium with loads of naturally recorded ambience.?

My question to you is whether you prefer to hear the naturally recorded ambience through an accurate speaker, or artificial ambience imposed by the speaker?

skeptic
04-13-2004, 04:26 PM
First of all, I have never commented on any other Bose product because I don't know anything about them.

Secondly, it would be pointless to publish anything about the frequency response of Bose 901 because its response at your ears which is the only one that counts is so very dependent on room acoustics and placement that the response in one room would have nothing in common with the response in another. The notion that you can somehow draw a magic line called frequency response and describe a loudspeaker is as absurd as quoting a number of watts and describe an amplifier. As for the Bose 901 series 1 and 2 using CTS drivers, the overall balance of the high end was not much worse than many contemporary products of its era which is to say not very good. That is why the top octave or so must be supplemented with tweeters. The newer versions may have slightly better treble, I'm not so sure about that but the lowest octave of bass is gone.

According to measurements by laboratories of the day, the in room frequency response of the Bose 901 held up to about 26 hz with strong output, 23 with reduced output, had a broad hump in the 500 hz region, and fell off above 14 khz. Once the design was changed to a ported version, bass below 40 hz was gone. I have not read subsequent reviews. BTW, the bass response of the Bose 901 series one and two given sufficient electrical power outperformed every other commercially available speaker of its day including monsters like JBL Ranger Paragon D44000, AR3, Altec A7 Voice of the Theater, Klipschorn, Tannoy 15 inch Dual Concentric Monitor, and the largest Bozaks. It will still outperform most loudspeakers today in that regard. As for the high end, what there was of it was unlike other loudspeakers having virtually perfect horizontal dispersion. Eliminating the wasteful inefficient crossover network and replacing it with a precision equalizer matched exactly to the speaker system, eliminating internal standing waves by having the drivers mounted on baffles without other sides parallel to them, using multiple drivers to eliminate the secondary resonances of individual drivers were just some of the innovations of this speaker system. Those who dismiss it lightly because its sound is so different and not of audiophile quality today fail to see that when much better materials emerge allowing for powerful true full range drivers, this design will be resurected to produce a remarkable product again. Even today, with its limitations, many people are highly attracted to it and enhanced as mine are, it is far preferable to the me too $2000 to $3000 little boxes with a pair of 8 inch woofers, a 3 inch midrange, and a 1 inch dome tweeter built by a guy who tells you if you want to hear deep bass, go buy a subwoofer for another $1000 to $2000.

Are the special qualities of Bose 901 series one and two worth all the time, effort, and expense to experiment with enhancing its frequency response to bring it in line with modern thinking and expectations? IMO, the answer is definitely yes.

Geoffcin
04-13-2004, 04:46 PM
To answer your question, yes, I have heard this speaker and all of its versions. I have listened to them in great detail and have measured them(all versions). They may sound do called "realistic"(which is relative from person to person) but they are FAR from accurate. If you look at the frequency plot of these speakers in a room, it looks like sharks teeth.

So what if your source is supposed to be a intimate solo piano work in a small room, how is that conveyed by this speaker?

Or how about a stadium with loads of naturally recorded ambience.?

My question to you is whether you prefer to hear the naturally recorded ambience through an accurate speaker, or artificial ambience imposed by the speaker?

Wow, am I glad I'm not you. To spend so much time with a speaker you don't like, it must have been hell.

Frequancy responce is one part of the equation, but not the whole part. Phase coherance, transiant responce, box resonance, diffraction effects, all are part of the whole picture. The comb effects that you observed as a saw tooth responce graph can be changed by the proper speaker positioning. As I remember the 901's were set about 6' from the back wall. Actually I thought it was funny, as I never saw anyone set speakers out in the middle of the room!

No, I never did hear any intimate piano on them, but I did hear some classical, and I brought my Doobie Bros album over, and boy did it sound good!

Yes, there's a big difference when you hear naturally recorded ambiance replayed through a point source, and then played through a dipole. I prefer dipoles, and so do a lot of other audiophiles.

Audie Oghaisle
04-14-2004, 08:35 AM
...being a liar, presenting fantasy as fact, being a shill, countless other transgressions...and of course, dead wrong about everything I've stated...

So...in that light, I really have nothing to lose...

I have IN FACT done all that I say I have, I do IN FACT hear the levels of performance as claimed...I have IN FACT presented those statements subjectively and not gotten into a numbers game because numbers do not apply...My thirty year-old 901s are not direct radiators...comparing them to conventional speakers is inappropriate...the boom and tizz will always sound much more impressive at first glance...the outer gloss cannot compare to looking deep into the performance...one cannot approach these speakers with a mindset conditioned by years of listening to woofers and tweeters and crossovers, close miking techniques, mixing boards and pan pots...you must suspend all you think you know, immerse yourself in their sound field and ignore the specsmanship...they require much more listener involvement than most are willing to contribute...in auditioning these units, most really don't know how to listen...and it really is a shame.

Audie

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-14-2004, 09:25 AM
Wow, am I glad I'm not you. To spend so much time with a speaker you don't like, it must have been hell.

Dude, you have no idea!! But it is my job to recommend the best speakers for my clients, so I do just to keep informed. After listening to them, and measuring them, you can safely assume that I didn't recommend them.


Frequancy responce is one part of the equation, but not the whole part. Phase coherance, transiant responce, box resonance, diffraction effects, all are part of the whole picture.

All of this I am accutely aware of. This speaker had a poor frequency response, profound phase variances(because of the reflections) poor transient response(also because of the reflections) some box resonance, and there was no need to talk about diffraction. In that day they paid no attention to that at all.


The comb effects that you observed as a saw tooth responce graph can be changed by the proper speaker positioning. As I remember the 901's were set about 6' from the back wall. Actually I thought it was funny, as I never saw anyone set speakers out in the middle of the room!

You are not correct. The comb filtering is an effect of the design of the speaker and cannot be avoided. Comb filtering happens when the different reflections emitted by the speaker collide with each other adding and subtracting the frequency response of the speaker. Moving the speaker further away from the walls creates distinct echo's, and causes the bass response to roll off even higher than it does. Placing them closer to the walls kills the transient response further, causes imaging to be extremely diffused(worse than it already is), and causes it to stimulate room modes and nodes profoundly.


No, I never did hear any intimate piano on them, but I did hear some classical, and I brought my Doobie Bros album over, and boy did it sound good! .

I never knock anyone's taste, this speaker just doesn't fit mine for the reasons I mention previously.


Yes, there's a big difference when you hear naturally recorded ambiance replayed through a point source, and then played through a dipole. I prefer dipoles, and so do a lot of other audiophiles.

I always thought so called audiophile's holy grail was accuracy. Now I REALLY do not understand what an audiophile is. They buy cables that have a distinct sonic character, speakers that create artificial reflections, and pair these will ultra expensive tube amps with tons of distortion, turntables with ultra expensive tone arms, and pay very little to room acoustics. If this is what audiophile stands for, I am glad I am not one!

Audie Oghaisle
04-14-2004, 10:14 AM
...an audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction...

Certainly there are folks who post @ this site who are quite enthusiastic...hobbyists can be quite fanatical in fact...

Who can define what hi-fi reproduction is? IS it straight wire with gain? Can be...mostly it's not...in order to achieve that goal one would need to replicate the gear and listening room sonics present at the final mix...and even that's not quite it...you would need access to the raw inputs to the board before editing and mixdown...that is neither practical, possible nor commercially viable...

Hi-fi is what each individual is satisfied as to what that might be...eye, or in this case, ear of the beholder...

There are those who think wire is wire and others who think insulations sound different, those who like to like to warm their cheese sandwiches on a bank of 6L6s, those who prefer vinyl over an approximation thereof or those who think Kenny G. is jazz...

Audie

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-14-2004, 10:57 AM
...an audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction...

Certainly there are folks who post @ this site who are quite enthusiastic...hobbyists can be quite fanatical in fact...

Who can define what hi-fi reproduction is? IS it straight wire with gain? Can be...mostly it's not...in order to achieve that goal one would need to replicate the gear and listening room sonics present at the final mix...and even that's not quite it...you would need access to the raw inputs to the board before editing and mixdown...that is neither practical, possible nor commercially viable...

Hi-fi is what each individual is satisfied as to what that might be...eye, or in this case, ear of the beholder...

There are those who think wire is wire and others who think insulations sound different, those who like to like to warm their cheese sandwiches on a bank of 6L6s, those who prefer vinyl over an approximation thereof or those who think Kenny G. is jazz...

Audie

So I suppose by your definition, and boom box is hifi. I mean after all, it is in the ear of the listener. There are some here that find the sound of a boom box quite pleasing.

Are you from Marin county and worship crystals?

Audie Oghaisle
04-14-2004, 11:31 AM
"...So I suppose by your definition..."

Not mine, Merriam-Webster's.

"...and boom box is hifi..."

If all you have ever been exposed to is a tiny ransistor radio, it could be. It's all relative. It wouldn't fit my definition, however.

"...Are you from Marin county and worship crystals?..."

The left coast? No. Although I am bigger than a breadbox...one down, nine to go...Arlene...

By the way, what exactly is a "Stoogie"?

Audie

slate1
07-23-2004, 10:16 AM
GOOD speakers won't need an EQ. Bose speakers REQUIRE an EQ. What does that tell you?

No offense N. Abstentia, but I just have never understood the whole "you should never touch your tone controls and should be hung, drawn and made to listen to polka if you use an EQ" point of view.

I could subscribe to the whole idea if every recording ever made was done in exactly the same recording studio using exactly the same equipment under exactly the same conditions, etc. etc. - but that's simply just not the case.

If you ever get the chance to witness the recording process you'll see that from the moment the first guitar string is plucked to the moment it's placed on the final master there are tonal adjusments via EQ being done throughout the entire process.

I've been using an AudioControl Ten Series III EQ for years with every amp/speaker combination I've ever had. The trick, in my opinon, is not to over do it - I never tweak more than 4-6db and have always been able to compensate for some of the obvious faults in the original recordings.

Ahhh - I hear you already out there, "faults in the original recordings??? but that's the way the record was MEANT to be heard"

How do I know what it originally sounded like unless I've got the exact equipment and monitors that were present in the original recording and mixing studio? I can't - no one can.

Everyone just needs to face the fact that there's no way to exactly duplicate what the originators of the music were intending with a particular mix. Furthermore, everyone also needs to realize that no two amp/speaker combinations are ever going to sound alike and that even if you take the same amp/speaker combinations and place them in two different rooms they're likely to sound dramatically different.

My only point is that, in my opinion, a **GOOD** EQ that doesn't introduce any additional noise (like an AudioControl - which, btw, is going to set you back several hundred dollars) is an essential part of any setup. Tone controls, I will grant you, are fairly useless as they adjust broad swaths of the sound spectrum and unavoidably end up adjusting elements that you don't want tinkered with.

If you know what you're doing and are fairly reserved with your adjustments a high quality EQ can be an invaluable piece of equipment.

Let the flames begin!!!!

Ja Galus
07-25-2004, 09:38 PM
I was a sucker back in 1986...I bought a pair of Bose 901s. I played around with placement for a few months...tried everything. I could never get the midrange to sound right. About 6 months later, I heard a friend's DCM Time Window speakers. The 901s went up for sale the next day. I bought into the hype. They were my biggest audio mistake up to that point, with the exception of buying an outboard Carver Digital Time Lens. Mind you, they were a perfect match for the inferior "digital sound" of the day...they were good at masking flaws!

eisforelectronic
07-26-2004, 05:14 AM
Lifestyle systems always paid excellent commission. With a little experimenting I did happen upon one way to make a lifestyle system sound decent.....change all the speakers.

Pat D
07-26-2004, 07:54 AM
...being a liar, presenting fantasy as fact, being a shill, countless other transgressions...and of course, dead wrong about everything I've stated...

So...in that light, I really have nothing to lose...

I have IN FACT done all that I say I have, I do IN FACT hear the levels of performance as claimed...I have IN FACT presented those statements subjectively and not gotten into a numbers game because numbers do not apply...My thirty year-old 901s are not direct radiators...comparing them to conventional speakers is inappropriate...the boom and tizz will always sound much more impressive at first glance...the outer gloss cannot compare to looking deep into the performance...one cannot approach these speakers with a mindset conditioned by years of listening to woofers and tweeters and crossovers, close miking techniques, mixing boards and pan pots...you must suspend all you think you know, immerse yourself in their sound field and ignore the specsmanship...they require much more listener involvement than most are willing to contribute...in auditioning these units, most really don't know how to listen...and it really is a shame.

AudieThey are, of course, a very old model and a different animal than subsequent versions. I heard it so many, many years ago I wouldn't want to comment, though I don't remember thinking they were unpleasant. They are certainly very different from those silly cube things, which I found quite unpleasant on a lot of classical material--mixed chorus, for example. Sound & Vision measured the ghastly little things some time ago, I believe . . .

A few years ago, I heard the Bose 901 series something or other in the same room with a some big Klipsch box speaker. While I know the meters on amplifiers aren't very accurate, we did notice that they read a fraction of a watt on the Klipsch speakers while they read over 200 watts on the 901s at quite moderate levels--I think because they require EQ in the deep bass. But, anyway, they weren't unpleasant and threw a nice enough image.

Well, I don't think that they are quite my cup of tea, your taste and your preferences are king. And I don't think think the current model 901 is a bad speaker, but for me it's not a good value. But then I've never tried one at home, either.

Pat D
07-26-2004, 08:09 AM
No, I don't use tone controls. They add too much noise to the signal path, and I won't buy a preamp that does not have defeatable tone controls.

RIAA phono EQ? I thought that RIAA thing was just a phono preamp that allows you to hook a turntable up to any RCA input? Did I misunderstand that one?

Tape deck..gave up on cassettes in 1991.

Auditorium tweaking..well I don't live in an auditorium so I don't need that.

Speaker placement..when done right you won't need an EQ. If you think you need an EQ to fix sound problems, you have either crappy speakers, don't have them set up right, or your room is not properly damped.
Well, of course a phone preamp is used so you can hook up a phono cartridge on a tone arm mounted to a turntable. But why is this needed? Well, I'll tell you. First of all, phono cartridges have quite low levels of outputs, which is measured in millivolts. So a phono preamp has to raise up the signal level to line level (tape, aux, CD inputs).

Second, dragging record past a stylus is an inherently noisy process. Anyway, in the mastering process, EQ is applied to the signal to raise up the highs and reduce the bass. Hook up your turntable to a line level input like a Tape or Auxiliary input, and you will not only find it quite low in level but rather screechy. So, on playback, the phono preamp applies reverse EQ to cut down those highs and make the response more or less flat and a lot more mellow! So, you see, phono playback does involve EQ both in recording and playback. There used to be a number of different EQ curves, but the RIAA one became the standard one.

Ahhh, the young! They just lack experience in a lot of things. . . . :)

skeptic
07-26-2004, 09:00 AM
"RIAA phono EQ? I thought that RIAA thing was just a phono preamp that allows you to hook a turntable up to any RCA input? Did I misunderstand that one?"

I think you misunderstood that one...and maybe one or two others.

With the invention of the microgroove phonograph record, what we call vinyl LPs today, certain limitations of the physics of making records had to be overcome. If the signal was applied to the cutting head flat the bass tones would make the groove much too wide to allow any appreciable playing time and the highs would be obliterated by surface noise. So, engineers wisely devised a standard for boosting the highs and cutting the lows on recording and then applying a complimentary boost to the bass and cut to the highs on playback. This equalization process meets a standard called the RIAA curve. All magnetic phonograph cartridges require this equalization to produce anything close to flat frequency response. (by the way, the boosts and cuts at the frequency extremes are considerable.) Of course they encountered the same problem with other processes like tape recording where they have to do the same thing only their equalization standard is called the NAB curve. FM broadcasts also have a similar problem but they just use a filter on playback called a 75 microsecond de-emphesis but it amounts to the same thing. So before your phonograph record reaches your hands it has undergone at least 2 1/2 equalizations, one on the master tape, one on the mixdown tape and again on cutting the disc. But it doesn't stop there. Look at a picture of a recording engineer sitting at a recording console. See all of those knobs, switches and sliders? Know what they do? There sure are a lot of them. And a good percentage of them are used to apply....you guesed it, equalization. So your recording has been equalized to death before you even get it. What about all of the noise and distortion the other equalizers have introduced? It's usually well below audibility. Oh BTW, many microphones use the mechanical equivalent of equalizers in their design as well. And guess what. The crossover networks in your loudspeaker system is a kind of equalizer especially if it uses the Linkwit Riley criteria where there is a slight boost just before the cutoff filtering for each driver. And the resonant chambers used to tune some speakers are you guessed it, the mechanical equivalent of equalizers of a sort.

BTW, you don't get away from it just because you get away from audio. The video amplifiers in your TV set have special equalization circuits that help it separate and decode the chroma signal so you can see color TV.

Equalization is an inherent part of analog signal processing whether we like it or not. On the other hand, digital signals don't need equalization. They don't rely on any mechanical devices whose physical limitations must be compensated for electrically. It dosn't care what part of the spectrum the ones and zeroes occur in.

brigrizzme
07-27-2004, 08:38 AM
Ears are like eyes and they're all different. I myself don't like the sound of Bose, but obviously many people purchase this product. They're keeping BestBuy's audio section in business. Could all of those consumers be wrong?

blake_mooney
06-15-2005, 06:30 PM
Ok I'm sorry I don't mean to flame anyone but people who like Bose do not know ANYTHING about speakers. Seriously, Bose is the abomination of speakers. Klipsch is similarly priced and they completely wipe the floor with anything Bose has to offer. Go listen to some Klipsch Reference home theater speakers and you'll see what I mean. Here is a nice little article http://www.retailworker.com/node/10435 (article) on why Bose sucks so bad. Those who like Bose most likely buy only from Nike and use AOL as their ISP. ;) I really don't care if people say "Everyone prefers different sounding speakers" that arguement only goes so far, that's like saying KLH speakers are better then Wilson Audio speakers because it's your "opinion". I agree with people having their own opinion and all but the plain and simple fact is that Bose makes HORRIBLE speakers and they overprice, period. They use 5 1/4 inch subwoofers in their LifeStyle home theater speakers, you can NOT get thunderous bass from that small of a driver, I don't care what anyone says. A Velodyne or Klipsch sub would pound ANY Bose sub into the ground without breaking a sweat.

I really feel like I'm saying all this for no reason even though it's true. Why do people always feel the need to defend crappy companys? Really, people com'on, this is like defending AOL, the only reason people defend it is if they already bought them unknowing how crappy the product is and they wanna justify their crappy purchase. No matter how obviously horrible a company is there will always be someone who defends them. :confused:

vr6ofpain
06-15-2005, 10:55 PM
If you've owned them that long chances are you will be so accustomed to that particular sound that anything else would come across as a shock. Tough to give up smoking too - even if it's good for you.
:D


You've actually got a point on this one. Audio people seem to carry a bizarre chromosone that flares up everytime an audio manufacturer goes "mainstream". It's the same one that forces them to call their favorite band a "sell-out" when their music becomes part of the pop culture (as if it's the bands fault that tastes evolve). Lest we forget, Infinity and JBL also used to make VERY good speakers that were "hi-end" not too long ago. However, as soon as they started selling to the mass market, they lost all credibility with audiophiles. How often do you see members here recommending Polk, Inifinity, or JBL these days instead of Von Schweikert, Green Mountain, Taylor, JM Lab, or some other name that very few have even heard of? Does anybody else remember the thread about 6 months ago about Totem being carried in a chain and the poster questioning their validity as a mid-fi, hi-fi brand? Tweeter carries Sonus Faber, does that mean the products are now automatically inferior?

Interesting point Audie...but I still don't care for Bose ;)
:p

mixadude
06-15-2005, 11:49 PM
LOL! Back in the early '70s when I was selling HiFi, I sold a few 901 systems powered by flame linears... same old carp, insults, and arguements; nothing new here. :D

By the by, I like boom and tizz. A few years ago we built eight 12 cubic foot over ported boxes out of baltic birch stuffed with EVX-180s. We used fence posts for baffle stiffener / port shelves! Powered them with a pair of QSC Powerlight 4s. That made some serious BOOM. I took a friend by the shop and he was amazed to see the sawdust jump up and down 2" off the floor to the tune of Sade!

They're in Puff Daddy's studio now ;)

mixadude
06-16-2005, 01:15 AM
These sorts of EQ arguements have cracked me up for decades.

The recording process has become the creative process in much of the music out there. EQ is the order of the day, whether it's analog or digital, you can bet that there's eq aplenty been applied in the creative process. skeptic's primmer was a good rendering of RIAA eq though. (yet another edit) Then there's the mastering lab :eek:

I've been a live sound mixer most of my life and I'm old. EQ is my best friend, followed by compression, with gating a distant 3rd. The problem is I want it where I want it, but more importantly I don't want it where it is unexpected. I don't want it from my environment. I also don't want it from my playback system. But you can rest assured (or uneasily as the case may be) that I'm gonna crank the everlivin snot outa the eq and compressors in many circumstances.

I (we) leave it to you to build playback systems that you enjoy, whatever the variety. :D

edit- spelling check :eek:

T BOMB25
06-16-2005, 12:32 PM
Im not a Bose fan to be fair its hard for a speaker with the same design to hold for over thirty years in this case it could be considered one of the best of all time but over the years it has showed that it was mearly and increadible marketing scheam that Bose created hey at least they are responsible publicity in the audio field,it takes more than great articles to be a great speaker in speakers it could be your worst sin more than anything you can buy on this planet.Yes i have heard many other over rated speaker from many other companies but when a company thrives off of advertisements only now that is pathetic and very misleading to the consumer but see thats the differrence a consumer is not a audiophile and we! wont be mislead like that you wanna talk about old ledgendary speakers here is the real list first and foremost Quads esl 57&63s next Magnepan,Harbeneth,and the rest as follows Tannoy,Vandersten,Wharfedale (could be mentioned with Quads),yes Klipsch over fifty years cant be wrong and unlike Bose they are still imprving their design,yes JBL and Infinity they are still doing well lots of maketing to but in most cases they hit where it counts in the sound ever hear the Infinity Overture 3 great speaker thats just to name a few and as far as its derrect competitors 30 years ago Ohm and Dahlaquest they got smoked so to the BOSE BASHER! so advise you to invest in one those brand or the 12 thousand others that are on the speaker market or buid your own Dynaudio makes plenty of speaker kits any thing has got be better than the 901s so get off of here consumer and quit trying to make Bose richer and something you can really debate about "All Highs and Lows Dude! stop watching so many commercials and use the more important "sense" your ears you clown! stop disgracing this forum.

blake_mooney
06-17-2005, 01:24 PM
Im not a Bose fan to be fair its hard for a speaker with the same design to hold for over thirty years in this case it could be considered one of the best of all time but over the years it has showed that it was mearly and increadible marketing scheam that Bose created hey at least they are responsible publicity in the audio field,it takes more than great articles to be a great speaker in speakers it could be your worst sin more than anything you can buy on this planet.Yes i have heard many other over rated speaker from many other companies but when a company thrives off of advertisements only now that is pathetic and very misleading to the consumer but see thats the differrence a consumer is not a audiophile and we! wont be mislead like that you wanna talk about old ledgendary speakers here is the real list first and foremost Quads esl 57&63s next Magnepan,Harbeneth,and the rest as follows Tannoy,Vandersten,Wharfedale (could be mentioned with Quads),yes Klipsch over fifty years cant be wrong and unlike Bose they are still imprving their design,yes JBL and Infinity they are still doing well lots of maketing to but in most cases they hit where it counts in the sound ever hear the Infinity Overture 3 great speaker thats just to name a few and as far as its derrect competitors 30 years ago Ohm and Dahlaquest they got smoked so to the BOSE BASHER! so advise you to invest in one those brand or the 12 thousand others that are on the speaker market or buid your own Dynaudio makes plenty of speaker kits any thing has got be better than the 901s so get off of here consumer and quit trying to make Bose richer and something you can really debate about "All Highs and Lows Dude! stop watching so many commercials and use the more important "sense" your ears you clown! stop disgracing this forum.

Periods are your friend. :p But yah well said, I totally agree. I am so SICK of people trying to justify the atrocity that is Bose. Just like those people that defend AOL, *shudders*, why people feel the need to defend HORRIBLE companys I will never understand.... :confused:

bjornb17
06-17-2005, 01:29 PM
I seriously dislike how Bose operates, but since i don't like them, i dont buy them.

I just hate it when bose fans come up to me and tell me how much better their bose system is than mine without even knowing what i have. They are so brainwashed that they usually assume their AM system is the best system out there, and everything else in inferior.

I just try to be modest and not get into a heated discussion because it's pretty pointless.

If bose charged about $500 for their acoustimass systems, i would still think thats expensive, but i wouldn't complain at that price because it wouldn't be a totally huge ripoff. but for about $1500 for a few little cubes and a passive sub, NO amplifier, spring clips, plastic and untreated paper construction, its a big jip.

A DIY kind of guy can probably build a bose system for a couple hundred bucks or less. but then again, a DIY kind of guy knows better :)

topspeed
06-17-2005, 02:29 PM
Thank you so much for reviving this YEAR OLD THREAD that had mercifully died a natural death.

Bose bashing is as played as dub spinners.

Seriously, the last time the OP was online was in August 2004!

Let it go people.

RGA
06-17-2005, 05:49 PM
why people feel the need to defend HORRIBLE companys I will never understand.... :confused:

Well look at the hostory of Ford motor company --- people defend them because people don't care or don't pay attention in their high school Social Studies classes -- that is assuming the teacher does not have a gag order on them.

Some schools here get some funding by cola companies and in trade get to put pop machines in the building...thsi is all fine and good and I don;t have aproblem with this because i believe high schoolers get so much advertising anyway and they still have the CHOICE to buy or not. What IS a concern is that they also demand that teachers say not an ill word against the company (or they get canned as it were) and that one can not broach the moral and ethical issue about advertising and selling harmful junk food to the school population...again I'm not saying iot should not be sold but gag orders from companies not to allow free discussion is a problem.

Of course they argue that welll the school board made the decision to take the money...and that's because schools are desperate for the money -- but this is not what education is about or SHOULD be about - it is just like using slave labour in a less developed country because the country has no law against it...just because you CAN do a thing doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing.

Ford is such a morally bankrupt company over its history that it is absolutely stunning that anyone Buys their exploding cars. This BTW is coming from ME an ex Ford owner. So they fooled me once too.

The worst thing about university is that when you see what some of these companies have done and are still doing it really starts to limit the stuff you can buy and not feel guilty about it. Luckily there are alternatives.

mixadude
06-17-2005, 08:09 PM
Just for the record, I never said that i was pro or con on the Bose issue. I just thought that it would be ironic to respond to this ~year old thread with a comment about how nothing has changed on this subject for >30 years :eek:

I will say that I have heard them sound pretty good with some material in some conditions. I don't, however, own any, nor have I ever owned any, and I will most likely not ever.

I did say I like boom and tizz... I may not have mentioned that I also like everything else inbetween. In the right amounts. With coherancy and phase accuracy. I've been setting up large systems very frequently (sometimes daily) since the late '70s and strive to achieve the most out of what I have to work with each time. Never though with anything Bose! LOL :D

bjornb17
06-17-2005, 08:23 PM
i didnt realize how old the thread was :P